People v. Solomon CA1/2

Filed 12/17/20 P. v. Solomon CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, No. A157599

v. (Solano County Super. LARRY SOLOMON, Ct. No. FCR335714) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Larry Solomon’s appellate counsel requests this court independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Solomon’s counsel informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he has not filed one. Upon our independent review of the record under Wende, we conclude there are no arguable appellate issues requiring further briefing and affirm. BACKGROUND In 2018, Solomon pleaded no contest to one count of second degree burglary, a felony (Pen. Code, § 459), and one count of false imprisonment, a misdemeanor (id., § 236), and the Solano County Superior Court found him guilty of these charges. His convictions stemmed from criminal conduct at a store in Fairfield, California. The court sentenced Solomon to a three-year term in county jail for the second degree burglary (the court imposed a concurrent term for the false

1

imprisonment conviction), with his final year to be suspended and Solomon to be placed on mandatory supervision as managed by the probation department under Penal Code section 1179, subdivision (h)(5)(B). It awarded him 257 days of custody and conduct credits. The court ordered that during his mandatory supervision, Solomon would be required to successfully complete counseling and therapy as directed by his probation officer. Solomon’s appeal follows the court’s revocation of his mandatory supervision after finding that Solomon failed on multiple occasions to report to the probation department as required under the terms of his mandatory supervision. In February 2019, the superior court temporarily revoked Solomon’s mandatory supervision and issued a bench warrant for his arrest upon the written recommendation of a senior deputy probation officer after Solomon allegedly failed to report to the department on February 13, 2019, as required. The court conducted a revocation hearing, at which Solomon admitted to this failure to report violation. The court ordered him to serve 30 days in custody, awarded him 24 days of custody credits and reinstated his mandatory supervision under the same terms and conditions as before. In April 2019, Solomon was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, and the district attorney’s office requested that the court schedule a hearing to consider revocation of his mandatory supervision, stating that it was pursuing revocation in lieu of filing a new complaint. A contested revocation hearing followed. At the hearing, a probation officer testified that Solomon failed to report to the department as required on March 29, 2019, and on April 29, 2019. On cross-examination, the officer testified that Solomon told her at a March 18, 2019 meeting that he was homeless and in need of housing, and that she would have referred him to housing resources if